Antithrombotic therapy in the management of hospitalised patients with COVID-19.

Hospitalised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are at a significantly higher risk of having thromboembolic events while in hospital and in the immediate post-hospital discharge period. Based on early data from observational studies, multiple high quality randomised controlled trials have been conducted worldwide to evaluate optimal thromboprophylaxis regimens to reduce thromboembolism and other COVID-19-related adverse outcomes in hospitalised patients. The International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis has published evidence-based guideline recommendations using established methodology for the management of antithrombotic therapy of COVID-19 patients, both in-hospital and in the immediate post-hospital discharge period. A good clinical practice statement supplemented these guidelines based on topics for which there was no or limited high-quality evidence. This review summarises the main recommendations of these documents to serve as a quick access tool for hospital doctors to use in their everyday practice when treating COVID-19 patients.

Lymphocytes, Mean Platelet Volume, and Albumin in Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients with Venous Thromboembolism.

As one of the frequent complications leading to poor prognosis in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, a better understanding of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in COVID-19 patients is needed. We conducted a single-center, retrospective study on 96 COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) from April to June 2022, in Shanghai Renji Hospital. Records of these COVID-19 patients upon admission were reviewed for demographic information, co-morbidities, vaccinations, treatment, and laboratory tests. VTE occurred in 11 (11.5%) cases among 96 COVID-19 patients despite the standard thromboprophylaxis since ICU admission. In COVID-VTE patients, a significant increase in B cells and a decrease in Ts cells were observed and a strong negative correlation (r = -0.9524, P = .0003) was found between these two populations. In COVID-19 patients with VTE, increased MPV and decreased albumin levels were seen in addition to the common VTE indicators of D-dimer abnormalities. The altered lymphocyte composition in COVID-VTE patients is noteworthy. In addition to D-dimer, MPV and albumin levels might be novel indicators for the risk of VTE in COVID-19 patients.

Improving guideline-concordant thromboprophylaxis prescribing for children admitted to hospital with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of venous thrombo-embolism (VTE) in hospitalized children has increased by 130%-200% over the last two decades. Given this increase, many centers utilize electronic clinical decision support (CDS) to prognosticate VTE risk and recommend prophylaxis. SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) is a risk factor for VTE; however, CDS developed before the COVID-19 pandemic may not accurately prognosticate VTE risk in children with COVID-19. This study's objective was to identify areas to improve thromboprophylaxis recommendations for children with COVID-19. METHODS: Inpatients with a positive COVID-19 test at admission were identified at a quaternary-care pediatric center between March 1, 2020 and January 20, 2022. The results of the institution's automated CDS thromboprophylaxis recommendations were compared to institutional COVID-19 thromboprophylaxis guidelines and to the actual thromboprophylaxis received. CDS optimization was performed to improve adherence to COVID-19 thromboprophylaxis recommendations. RESULTS: Of the 329 patients included in this study, 106 (28.2%) were prescribed pharmaco-prophylaxis, 167 (50.8%) were identified by the institutional COVID-19 guidelines as requiring pharmaco-prophylaxis, and 45 (13.2%) were identified by the CDS as needing pharmaco-prophylaxis. On univariate analysis, only age 12 years or more was associated with recipient of appropriate prophylaxis (OR 1.78, 95% CI: 1.13-2.82, p = .013). Five patients developed VTEs; three had symptoms at presentation, two were identified as high risk for VTE by both the automated and best practice assessments but were not prescribed pharmaco-prophylaxis. CONCLUSION: Automated thromboprophylaxis recommendations developed prior to the COVID-19 pandemic may not identify all COVID-19 patients needing pharmaco-prophylaxis. Existing CDS tools need to be updated to reflect COVID-19-specific risk factors for VTEs.

Guidelines for prophylaxis and anti-thrombotic treatment for patients with COVID-19. Consensus of the Latin American Cooperative Group on Hemostasis and Thrombosis (CLAHT) / Guía de profilaxia y tratamiento antitrombótico para pacientes con COVID-19. Consenso del Grupo Cooperativo Latinoamericano en Hemostasia y Trombosis (CLAHT)

Coagulopathy and thrombosis associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) represent a major issue in the management of this disease. In the past months, clinical studies have demonstrated that COVID-19 patients present with a particular hypercoagulable state, in which a markedly increased D-dimer concomitant with increased levels of fibrinogen are observed. This hypercoagulable state leads to an increased risk of thrombosis, which seems to be higher among those patients with critical symptoms of COVID-19. The best therapeutic approach to prevent thrombotic events in COVID-19 has not been determined yet and several questions regarding thromboprophylaxis therapy, such as the time to initiate anticoagulation, type of anticoagulant and dose regimen, have emerged among physicians. To address these concerns, several medical societies have published position papers to provide the opinion of thrombosis experts on the management of coagulopathy and thrombosis associated with COVID-19. In line with this, the Latin America Cooperative Group of Hemostasis and Thrombosis (Grupo CLAHT) has constituted a panel of experts in thrombosis and hemostasis to discuss the available data on this topic. The aim of this review is to summarize the current evidence regarding hemostatic impairment and thrombotic risk in COVID-19 and to provide a carefully revised opinion of Latin American experts on the thromboprophylaxis and management of thrombotic events and coagulopathy in patients with suspected COVID-19.

La coagulopatía y la trombosis asociadas a la enfermedad por coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) representan un problema importante en el manejo de esta enfermedad. Los estudios clínicos de los últimos meses han demostrado que los pacientes con COVID-19 presentan un estado de hipercoagulabilidad particular, en el que se observa un aumento notable del dímero D concomitante con niveles elevados de fibrinógeno. El estado de hipercoagulabilidad conduce a un mayor riesgo de trombosis, que parece ser mayor entre aquellos pacientes con síntomas críticos de COVID-19. El mejor enfoque terapéutico para prevenir los eventos trombóticos en esta nueva enfermedad aún no se ha determinado y han surgido varias preguntas con respecto a la tromboprofilaxia, como el momento adecuado para iniciar la anticoagulación, el tipo de anticoagulante y el régimen de dosis. Para abordar estas preocupaciones, varias sociedades médicas han publicado artículos de posición para brindar la opinión de expertos en trombosis sobre el manejo de la coagulopatía y trombosis asociadas a COVID-19. Grupo Cooperativo Latinoamericano de Hemostasia y Trombosis (Grupo CLAHT) ha convocado a un panel de expertos en trombosis y hemostasia para discutir los datos disponibles sobre este tema. El objetivo de esta revisión es resumir la evidencia actual con respecto al deterioro hemostático y el riesgo trombótico en el COVID-19 y proporcionar una opinión cuidadosamente revisada de los expertos latinoamericanos sobre la tromboprofilaxis y el manejo de eventos trombóticos y coagulopatía en pacientes con sospecha de COVID-19.

Prophylactic Inferior Vena Cava Filters for Venous Thromboembolism in Adults With Trauma: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Trauma is an independent risk factor for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Due to contraindications or delay in starting pharmacological prophylaxis among trauma patients with a high risk of bleeding, the inferior vena cava (IVC) filter has been utilized as alternative prevention for pulmonary embolism (PE). Albeit, its clinical efficacy has remained uncertain. Therefore, we performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness and safety of prophylactic IVC filters in severely injured patients. Methods: Three databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane) were searched from August 1, 2012, to October 27, 2021. Independent reviewers performed data extraction and quality assessment. Relative risk (RR) at 95% confidence interval (CI) pooled in a randomized meta-analysis. A parallel clinical practice guideline committee assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. The outcomes of interest included VTE, PE, deep venous thrombosis, mortality, and IVC filter complications. Results: We included 10 controlled studies (47 140 patients), of which 3 studies (310 patients) were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 7 were observational studies (46 830 patients). IVC filters demonstrated no significant reduction in PE and fatal PE (RR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.06-1.28 and RR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.01-7.84, respectively) by pooling RCTs with low certainty. However, it demonstrated a significant reduction in the risk of PE and fatal PE (RR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.12-0.55 and RR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.011-0.81, respectively) by pooling observational studies with very low certainty. IVC filter did not improve mortality in both RCTs and observational studies (RR, 1.44; 95% CI, 0.86-2.43 and RR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.3-1.31, respectively). Conclusion: In trauma patients, moderate risk reduction of PE and fatal PE was demonstrated among observational data but not RCTs. The desirable effect is not robust to outweigh the undesirable effects associated with IVC filter complications. Current evidence suggests against routinely using prophylactic IVC filters.

[Practice guidelines of thromboprophylaxis and management of anticoagulation in hospitalized patients with COVID-19].

Corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can lead to thrombotic complications through multiple mechanisms. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is one of the most important causes of death or poor prognosis in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The prognosis of thrombosis in COVID-19 patients can be improved with VTE and bleeding risk assessment, as well as appropriate VTE prophylaxis. However, in current clinical practice, there still is much room for progress in choose of appropriate prevention methods, anticoagulant regimens, doses, and courses based on the severity and specific condition of COVID-19 patients and dynamically balancing the risk of thrombosis and bleeding. In the past three years, a series of authoritative guidelines related to VTE and COVID-19 and high-quality, evidence-based medical research evidence have been released both in domestic and internationally. Based on this, in order to better guide the clinical practice in China, multi-discipline expert discussions and Delphi expert demonstrations formulated the"Thromboprophylaxis and management of anticoagulation in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: an update of the CTS guidelines", aiming to address the issues of thrombosis risk and prevention strategies caused by COVID-19, anticoagulant management of hospitalized patients, diagnosis and treatment of thrombosis, anticoagulant management of special populations, interaction and adjustment strategies of antiviral and anti-inflammatory drugs and anticoagulant drugs, follow-up after discharge and many other aspects of clinical situations. Recommendations and clinical guidelines are provided for appropriate thromboprophylaxis and anticoagulation management strategies for VTE in patients with COVID-19.

A Literature Review of Pathophysiology, Clinical Manifestations, Medications and Optimal Dosage, Outpatient, and Post-hospitalization Use of Anticoagulation in COVID-19 Patients.

Since severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 led to a world pandemic, extensive research has been conducted to identify its characteristics and form an appropriate management plan. One recognized complication of COVID-19 is coagulation defects that can lead to thromboembolic events. We have reviewed the literature to summarize and present the latest research about the pathophysiology, clinical manifestations, anticoagulation use and appropriate dose in COVID-19 patients, as well as the effect of anticoagulation in outpatient and post-hospital settings. The pathophysiology of coagulation abnormalities in COVID-19 is not fully understood yet, but multiple mechanisms appear to be involved, such as a direct viral attack, hyperinflammation, increased immune response, blood stasis, and endothelial injury. Clinical manifestations are mainly venous thromboembolism (deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism), arterial thromboembolism, ischemic stroke, central venous sinus thrombosis, and central retinal vein occlusion. Anticoagulation is widely used in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, unless it is contraindicated. Heparinoid is the main anticoagulant used. However, the appropriate dosage is still debated as research is trying to find a balance between benefits and risks. In outpatients, it appears that anticoagulation has no benefit in contrast to post-hospitalization use, where benefit could be observed in severely affected patients. We concluded that thromboprophylaxis should be used in treating hospitalized COVID-19 patients, but the dosage is still a matter of debate. More research needs to be done on outpatient and post-hospitalized patients to derive accurate conclusions.

Population pharmacokinetics of nadroparin for thromboprophylaxis in COVID-19 intensive care unit patients.

AIMS: Nadroparin is administered to COVID-19 intensive care unit (ICU) patients as thromboprophylaxis. Despite existing population pharmacokinetic (PK) models for nadroparin in literature, the population PK of nadroparin in COVID-19 ICU patients is unknown. Moreover, optimal dosing regimens achieving anti-Xa target levels (0.3-0.7 IU/mL) are unknown. Therefore, a population PK analysis was conducted to investigate different dosing regimens of nadroparin in COVID-19 ICU patients. METHODS: Anti-Xa levels (n = 280) from COVID-19 ICU patients (n = 65) receiving twice daily (BID) 5700 IU of subcutaneous nadroparin were collected to perform a population PK analysis with NONMEM v7.4.1. Using Monte Carlo simulations (n = 1000), predefined dosing regimens were evaluated. RESULTS: A 1-compartment model with an absorption compartment adequately described the measured anti-Xa levels with interindividual variability estimated for clearance (CL). Inflammation parameters C-reactive protein, D-dimer and estimated glomerular filtration rate based on the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equation allowed to explain the interindividual variability of CL. Moreover, CL was decreased in patients receiving corticosteroids (22.5%) and vasopressors (25.1%). Monte Carlo simulations demonstrated that 5700 IU BID was the most optimal dosing regimen of the simulated regimens for achieving prespecified steady-state t = 4 h anti-Xa levels with 56.7% on target (0.3-0.7 IU/mL). CONCLUSION: In our study, clearance of nadroparin is associated with an increase in inflammation parameters, use of corticosteroids, vasopression and renal clearance in critically ill patients. Furthermore, of the simulated regimens, targeted anti-Xa levels were most adequately achieved with a dosing regimen of 5700 IU BID. Future studies are needed to elucidate the underlying mechanisms of found covariate relationships.

Heterogeneous Treatment Effects of Therapeutic-Dose Heparin in Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19.

Importance: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of therapeutic-dose heparin in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 produced conflicting results, possibly due to heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE) across individuals. Better understanding of HTE could facilitate individualized clinical decision-making. Objective: To evaluate HTE of therapeutic-dose heparin for patients hospitalized for COVID-19 and to compare approaches to assessing HTE. Design, Setting, and Participants: Exploratory analysis of a multiplatform adaptive RCT of therapeutic-dose heparin vs usual care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in 3320 patients hospitalized for COVID-19 enrolled in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia between April 2020 and January 2021. Heterogeneity of treatment effect was assessed 3 ways: using (1) conventional subgroup analyses of baseline characteristics, (2) a multivariable outcome prediction model (risk-based approach), and (3) a multivariable causal forest model (effect-based approach). Analyses primarily used bayesian statistics, consistent with the original trial. Exposures: Participants were randomized to therapeutic-dose heparin or usual care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. Main Outcomes and Measures: Organ support-free days, assigning a value of -1 to those who died in the hospital and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 for those who survived to hospital discharge; and hospital survival. Results: Baseline demographic characteristics were similar between patients randomized to therapeutic-dose heparin or usual care (median age, 60 years; 38% female; 32% known non-White race; 45% Hispanic). In the overall multiplatform RCT population, therapeutic-dose heparin was not associated with an increase in organ support-free days (median value for the posterior distribution of the OR, 1.05; 95% credible interval, 0.91-1.22). In conventional subgroup analyses, the effect of therapeutic-dose heparin on organ support-free days differed between patients requiring organ support at baseline or not (median OR, 0.85 vs 1.30; posterior probability of difference in OR, 99.8%), between females and males (median OR, 0.87 vs 1.16; posterior probability of difference in OR, 96.4%), and between patients with lower body mass index (BMI <30) vs higher BMI groups (BMI ≥30; posterior probability of difference in ORs >90% for all comparisons). In risk-based analysis, patients at lowest risk of poor outcome had the highest propensity for benefit from heparin (lowest risk decile: posterior probability of OR >1, 92%) while those at highest risk were most likely to be harmed (highest risk decile: posterior probability of OR <1, 87%). In effect-based analysis, a subset of patients identified at high risk of harm (P = .05 for difference in treatment effect) tended to have high BMI and were more likely to require organ support at baseline. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients hospitalized for COVID-19, the effect of therapeutic-dose heparin was heterogeneous. In all 3 approaches to assessing HTE, heparin was more likely to be beneficial in those who were less severely ill at presentation or had lower BMI and more likely to be harmful in sicker patients and those with higher BMI. The findings illustrate the importance of considering HTE in the design and analysis of RCTs. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02735707, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, NCT04372589.

Assessment of the Risk of Venous Thromboembolism in Nonhospitalized Patients With COVID-19.

Importance: Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 have higher rates of venous thromboembolism (VTE), but the risk and predictors of VTE among individuals with less severe COVID-19 managed in outpatient settings are less well understood. Objectives: To assess the risk of VTE among outpatients with COVID-19 and identify independent predictors of VTE. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort study was conducted at 2 integrated health care delivery systems in Northern and Southern California. Data for this study were obtained from the Kaiser Permanente Virtual Data Warehouse and electronic health records. Participants included nonhospitalized adults aged 18 years or older with COVID-19 diagnosed between January 1, 2020, and January 31, 2021, with follow-up through February 28, 2021. Exposures: Patient demographic and clinical characteristics identified from integrated electronic health records. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the rate per 100 person-years of diagnosed VTE, which was identified using an algorithm based on encounter diagnosis codes and natural language processing. Multivariable regression using a Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard model was used to identify variables independently associated with VTE risk. Multiple imputation was used to address missing data. Results: A total of 398 530 outpatients with COVID-19 were identified. The mean (SD) age was 43.8 (15.8) years, 53.7% were women, and 54.3% were of self-reported Hispanic ethnicity. There were 292 (0.1%) VTE events identified over the follow-up period, for an overall rate of 0.26 (95% CI, 0.24-0.30) per 100 person-years. The sharpest increase in VTE risk was observed during the first 30 days after COVID-19 diagnosis (unadjusted rate, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.51-0.67 per 100 person-years vs 0.09; 95% CI, 0.08-0.11 per 100 person-years after 30 days). In multivariable models, the following variables were associated with a higher risk for VTE in the setting of nonhospitalized COVID-19: age 55 to 64 years (HR 1.85 [95% CI, 1.26-2.72]), 65 to 74 years (3.43 [95% CI, 2.18-5.39]), 75 to 84 years (5.46 [95% CI, 3.20-9.34]), greater than or equal to 85 years (6.51 [95% CI, 3.05-13.86]), male gender (1.49 [95% CI, 1.15-1.96]), prior VTE (7.49 [95% CI, 4.29-13.07]), thrombophilia (2.52 [95% CI, 1.04-6.14]), inflammatory bowel disease (2.43 [95% CI, 1.02-5.80]), body mass index 30.0-39.9 (1.57 [95% CI, 1.06-2.34]), and body mass index greater than or equal to 40.0 (3.07 [1.95-4.83]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of outpatients with COVID-19, the absolute risk of VTE was low. Several patient-level factors were associated with higher VTE risk; these findings may help identify subsets of patients with COVID-19 who may benefit from more intensive surveillance or VTE preventive strategies.

The Effectiveness of the Intermediate and Therapeutic Doses of Enoxaparin in COVID-19 Patients: A Comparative Study of Factor Xa Inhibition.

BACKGROUND: Management of anticoagulant therapy in COVID-19 patients is critical. Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) thromboprophylaxis is already recommended, and anti-Factor Xa (anti-FXa) monitoring has been used to titrate LMWH doses. METHODS: Through a cross-sectional study, we evaluated anti-FXa activity in patients admitted to the ICU, receiving intermediate dose (30, 40, 50 mg, subcutaneously [SC], twice daily) or therapeutic dose (1 mg/kg, SC, Q12h) of enoxaparin to find whether the patients in these two groups achieved anti-FXa levels in the accepted thromboprophylaxis range. RESULTS: The occurrence of deep vein thrombosis was 26% in the therapeutic-dose group and 17% in the intermediate-dose group. D-dimer values were nearly 3.5-fold higher in those who received a therapeutic dose of anticoagulants than in those who received intermediate-dose thromboprophylaxis. Patients in the therapeutic-dose group had significantly higher IL-6 levels (p ≤ 0.001). More than one-third of the patients in the therapeutic-dose group (n = 8; 42.18%) and approximately half of the patients in the intermediate-dose group (n = 12; 52.2%) achieved the target range level of anti-FXa. Patients who received therapeutic doses were more likely to have anti-FXa levels above the expected range (47.4 vs 13% in the intermediate-dose group; p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Therapeutic dose of enoxaparin in critically ill COVID-19-infected patients did not reduce the incidence of thromboembolic events and, on the other hand, may predispose these patients to increased risk of bleeding by increasing anti-FXa activity above the desired level. Administration of intermediate-dose thromboprophylaxis is suggested to achieve anti-FXa levels in the accepted thromboprophylaxis range.

[Thromboprophylaxis and management of anticoagulation in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: clinical pathway and practices].

Inpatients infected with SARS-CoV-2 are prone to various complications during clinical treatment, especially venous thromboembolism (VTE), which significantly increases the risk of unexpected death. In recent years, a series of authoritative guidelines and high-quality evidence-based medicine research evidence have been published internationally. This working group has recently formulated the Guidelines for Thrombosis Prevention and Anticoagulant Management of Hospitalized Patients with Novel Coronavirus Infection with multidisciplinary experts in the fields of VTE prevention, critical care and evidence-based medicine from international and domestic experts. Based on this, the working group elaborated on 13 clinical issues in urgent need of attention and solution in current clinical practice on the basis of the guidelines and defined standardized operational paths, including VTE risk and bleeding risk assessment in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, VTE prevention and anticoagulant management of hospitalized COVID-19 patients with different severity and special patient populations complicated with pregnancy, malignant tumors, underlying diseases or organ insufficiency, usage of antiviral and anti-inflammatory drugs or thrombocytopenia, in addition to VTE prevention and anticoagulant management of discharged COVID-19 patients, anticoagulant management of COVID-19 patients complicated with VTE during hospitalization, anticoagulant management in patients undergoing VTE therapy with COVID-19, risk factors of bleeding in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, clinical classification and corresponding management. In particular, by referring to the latest international guidelines and research evidence, this paper provides clear implementation recommendations on how to accurately determine the standard preventive dose anticoagulation and therapeutic dose anticoagulation for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. This paper is expected to provide standardized operational procedures and implementation norms for healthcare workers to managing thrombus prevention and anticoagulation in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin in critically ill patients with COVID-19. An observational prospective, multicenter study.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 induces coagulopathy associated with an increase of thromboembolic events. Due to the lack of agreement on recommendations for thromboprophylactic management, the aim of this study was to study the dosages of LMWH used in critically ill COVID-19 patients assessing the effect on their outcome. METHODS: We evaluated data of the Reg-COVID19. According to LMWH dose two groups were analyzed: prophylaxis and treatment. Primary outcome was the relationship of LMWH dosage with mortality. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of thrombotic and bleeding events, length of ICU stay, invasive mechanical ventilation, and thrombotic and inflammatory parameters. RESULTS: Data of 720 patients were analyzed, 258 in the prophylaxis group and 462 in the treatment group. C Reactive Protein, invasive mechanical ventilation, tocilizumab and corticosteroid treatments were related with the choice of LMWH dose. Hemorrhagic events (66/720, 9.2%) and thrombotic complications (69/720, 9.6%) were similar in both groups (p = .819 and p = .265), as was the time course of the thrombotic events, earlier than hemorrhagic ones (9 [3-18] and 12 [6-19] days respectively). Mortality was lower in prophylaxis group (25.2% versus 35.1%), but once an inverse probability weighting model was applied, we found no effect of LMWH dose. CONCLUSION: We found no benefit or harm with the administration of therapeutic or prophylactic LMWH dose in COVID19 critically ill patients. With a similar rate of hemorrhagic or thrombotic events, the LMWH dose had no influence on mortality. More studies are needed to determine the optimal thromboprophylaxis protocol for critically ill patients.

A consensus viewpoint on the role of direct factor Xa inhibitors in the management of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: Cancer patients are at high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), a significant cause of cancer-related death. Historically, low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) were the gold standard therapy for cancer-associated VTE, but recent evidence supports the use of direct factor Xa inhibitors in cancer-associated VTE and this is now reflected in many guidelines. However, uptake of direct factor Xa inhibitors varies and guidance on the use of direct factor Xa inhibitors in specific cancer sub-populations and clinical situations is lacking. This review presents consensus expert opinion alongside evaluation of evidence to support healthcare professionals in the use of direct factor Xa inhibitors in cancer-associated VTE. METHODS: Recent guidelines, meta-analyses, reviews and clinical studies on anticoagulation therapy for cancer-associated VTE were used to direct clinically relevant topics and evidence to be systematically discussed using nominal group technique. The consensus manuscript and recommendations were developed based on these discussions. RESULTS: Considerations when prescribing anticoagulant therapy for cancer-associated VTE include cancer site and stage, systemic anti-cancer therapy (including vascular access), drug-drug interactions, length of anticoagulation, quality of life and needs during palliative care. Treatment of patients with kidney or liver impairment, gastrointestinal disorders, extremes of bodyweight, elevated bleeding or recurrence risk, VTE recurrence and COVID-19 is discussed. CONCLUSION: Anticoagulant therapy for cancer-associated VTE patients should be carefully selected with consideration given to the relative benefits of specific drugs when individualizing care. Direct factor Xa inhibitors are typically the treatment of choice for preventing VTE recurrence in non-cancer patients and should also be considered as such for cancer-associated VTE in most situations.

Thromboembolic events in hospitalised patients with COVID-19: ecological assessment with a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: Thrombosis is a common complication of the novel COVID-19. Pre-COVID-19 studies reported racial differences in the risk of developing thrombosis. This study aimed to describe the geographical variations in the reported incidences and outcomes of thromboembolic events and thromboprophylaxis in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. The final search for randomised clinical trials was carried out in January 2022. Screening eligible articles and data extraction were independently performed in duplicate by multiple reviewers. DESIGN: Scoping review. MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Libraries were searched using terms related to COVID-19 and thromboembolism. SETTING: Hospitals all over the world. PARTICIPANTS: In-hospital patients with COVID-19. OUTCOME MEASURES: The incidence of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), and the prophylactic anticoagulation therapy. RESULTS: In total, 283 studies were eligible, representing (239 observational studies, 39 case series and 7 interventional studies). The incidence of DVT was the highest in Asia (40.8%) and hospital mortality was high (22.7%). However, the incidence of PE was not very high in Asia (3.2%). On the contrary, the incidence of PE was the highest in the Middle East (16.2%) and Europe (14. 6%). Prophylactic anticoagulation therapy with low-molecular-weight heparin was the main treatment provided in all areas. Four of the seven randomised clinical trials were conducted internationally. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of DVT was the highest in Asia. The incidence of PE was higher in the Middle East and Europe; however, detection bias during the pandemic cannot be ruled out. There were no major differences in the type or dose of prophylactic anticoagulants used for thromboprophylaxis among the regions.